|
Xander77 posted:Can someone explain the similarities / differences between the BDS movement and the Palestinian Authority's boycott of products made beyond the green line? Differences / similarities in causes / aims? Capital B BDS is all Israeli products, and they formally seek dissolving the Israeli state. The Palestinian Authority in theory wants peace, although in actuality all they care about are their vacation homes in Cyprus. Anyway, Israel and Turkey's reapproachment is interesting, and also disappointing in the sense that Erdogan has said wildly anti-Semitic things and faced zero consequences for them from either Israel or the US because Turkey's too important. In addition to massacring Kurds. It'll be curious to see though if this in turn leads to a more serious US push against Assad or worsening US ties with Iran.
|
#
?
Dec 20, 2015 00:09
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 19, 2024 09:37 |
|
|
zeal posted:the US sure as hell isn't the Federation big, bloated, cumbersome, has overwhelming military might checks out
|
|
#
?
Dec 20, 2015 12:59
|
|
I CANNOT EJACULATE WITHOUT SEEING NATIVE AMERICANS BRUTALISED!
|
Kim Jong Il posted:Capital B BDS is all Israeli products, and they formally seek dissolving the Israeli state. No, they don't. That's the thing people accuse them of constantly so I can understand the confusion their actual stated goals are very different. What they actually formally seek is an end of the occupation, full equality for citizens of all races/religions and a right of return for palestinian refugees. Israel can still exist, it just can't exist as a discriminatory state committing constant war crimes.
|
|
#
?
Dec 20, 2015 13:23
|
|
|
And what does right of return mean in this context? The original refugees? The original refugees and all their descendants? The original refugees, all their descendants, and any random person who just so happens to be hanging out in their general area?
|
|
#
?
Dec 20, 2015 14:14
|
|
|
My Imaginary GF posted:Just look at the current antisemitic knifing epidemic in Israel and the response of Israelis when a knifing occurs: that is the response necessary of Palestinians whenever a terrorist attack occurs in order to halt those attacks. Until such a time as Palestinians are able to stop terrorist attacks without Israeli intervention, Palestine will never develop. The very fact that you can still describe the epidemic of knife attacks as "current" after all these months is a pretty solid indictment of the effectiveness of the Israeli response. It's hard to call the last decade or so of Israeli policy "successful" - retaliatory bombings, collective punishment, and mass arrests appear to have failed to stop the tide of terrorism even after being practiced for so long, and the only remotely effective pieces are Iron Dome (a big pile of "let's throw money and technology at a band-aid without actually solving the problem") and what little remains from Oslo's tattered corpse. Now that the security cooperation is seemingly in the verge of breaking down and anti-knife missile defense systems have yet to be installed in East Jerusalem, the time seems ripe for a serious reevaluation of Israeli policy. The Insect Court posted:On a related note, this seems as good a place as any to introduce Robert Wistrich's theory that one of the hallmarks of ideological 'new antisemitism' is the rhetorical equation of Zionism with Nazism. What argument? He doesn't have one. All those words boil down to "being anti-Israel in any way means being anti-semitic, just like Osama Bin Laden and the socialists, and all that bad stuff you hear about Israel is just conspiracy theories from Islamic socialist terrorist Jew-haters". I read the whole drat thing just in case he made any points worth refuting, and I was shocked at just how devoid of substance it is. Total waste of my time. -Troika- posted:And what does right of return mean in this context? The original refugees? The original refugees and all their descendants? The original refugees, all their descendants, and any random person who just so happens to be hanging out in their general area? Original refugees and their descendants, per the internationally recognized definition of "refugee", obviously. It's never had any other meaning.
|
|
#
?
Dec 20, 2015 16:46
|
|
|
Main Paineframe posted:Original refugees and their descendants, per the internationally recognized definition of "refugee", obviously. It's never had any other meaning.
|
|
#
?
Dec 20, 2015 17:00
|
|
|
Xander77 posted:The internationally recognized standard of refugee status does not include "their descendants" when not dealing with the Palestinian diaspora, for some odd reason. What about Israel's right of return? Seems only fair that Palestinians would be offered the same extension.
|
|
#
?
Dec 20, 2015 17:17
|
|
|
Is there a definition of a Palestinian Right of Return that would lead to Israel no longer existing? Because that seems to be the point in contention - whether or not BDS seeks to end the Israeli state.
|
|
#
?
Dec 20, 2015 17:17
|
|
|
Xander77 posted:The internationally recognized standard of refugee status does not include "their descendants" when not dealing with the Palestinian diaspora, for some odd reason. Yes it does. From the UNHCR: HANDBOOK AND GUIDELINES ON PROCEDURES AND CRITERIA FOR DETERMINING REFUGEE STATUS posted:If the head of a family meets the criteria of the definition, his dependants are normally granted refugee status according to the principle of family unity. it is obvious, however, that formal refugee status should not be granted to a dependant if this is incompatible with his personal legal status. Thus, a dependant member of a refugee family may be a national of the country of asylum or of another country, and may enjoy that country’s protection. To grant him refugee status in such circumstances would not be called for. The UN absolutely counts descendants as part of the refugee populations when not dealing with the Palestinian diaspora, see the Sahrawi refugees (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sahrawi_refugees)
|
|
#
?
Dec 20, 2015 17:51
|
|
|
team overhead smash posted:No, they don't. That's the thing people accuse them of constantly so I can understand the confusion their actual stated goals are very different. They want a one state solution, so your statement is false. A right of return and annexing Gaza and the West Bank means it's no longer Israel. You're arguing the equivalent of Ariel Sharon didn't slaughter those refugees, he just gave free passage, so there's no relationship whatsoever. captainblastum posted:Is there a definition of a Palestinian Right of Return that would lead to Israel no longer existing? Because that seems to be the point in contention - whether or not BDS seeks to end the Israeli state. Some people claim most wouldn't come back and would just take compensation. The other use is that some people say "BDS" but don't support Barghouti's ends or even just want to boycott settlements only, they don't realize what loaded language they're using. Kim Jong Il fucked around with this message at 19:35 on Dec 20, 2015 |
|
#
?
Dec 20, 2015 19:29
|
|
|
captainblastum posted:Is there a definition of a Palestinian Right of Return that would lead to Israel no longer existing? Because that seems to be the point in contention - whether or not BDS seeks to end the Israeli state. Depends on what you mean by "lead to", "Israel", and "no longer existing". Some people take "Israel" to mean "Israel as an independent sovereign entity", some people take it to mean "the current Israeli government", some people take it to mean "Israel as a Jewish-dominated state", and so on. Some of the people who gravitate toward that last definition feel that "Israel as a Jewish state" is wholly dependent on a significant majority of the population being Jewish so that they have the voting numbers needed to keep the minorities from having real significance in government, and therefore any significant source of non-Jewish immigration or citizenship (such as a one-state solution or a Palestinian right of return) is an existential threat to what they believe to be the most essential aspect of "Israel".
|
|
#
?
Dec 20, 2015 23:40
|
|
|
Main Paineframe posted:What argument? He doesn't have one. All those words boil down to "being anti-Israel in any way means being anti-semitic, just like Osama Bin Laden and the socialists, and all that bad stuff you hear about Israel is just conspiracy theories from Islamic socialist terrorist Jew-haters". I read the whole drat thing just in case he made any points worth refuting, and I was shocked at just how devoid of substance it is. Total waste of my time. Is it ever physically painful being so wrong? Please explain to us how you can read the following and transform it into "being anti-Israel in any way means anti-semitic, just like Osama Bin Laden". http://www.jcpa.org/phas/phas-wistrich-f04.htm quote:There have always been Bundists, Jewish communists, Reform Jews, and ultra-Orthodox Jews who strongly opposed Zionism without being Judeophobes. So, too, there are conservatives, liberals, and leftists in the West today who are pro-Palestinian, antagonistic toward Israel, and deeply distrustful of Zionism without crossing the line into anti- Semitism. There are also Israeli "post-Zionists" who object to the definition of Israel as an exclusively or even a predominantly "Jewish" state without feeling hostile toward Jews as such. There are others, too, who question whether Jews are really a nation; or who reject Zionism because they believe its accomplishment inevitably resulted in uprooting many Palestinians. None of these positions is intrinsically anti-Semitic in the sense of expressing opposition or hatred toward Jews as Jews. Hardcore anti-Zionists will not just shut up about how all criticism of Israel is supposedly being called anti-Zionists. Which is amusing because it's just so transparent an attempt to ward off criticisms of how their rhetoric can sometimes veer into outright antisemitism, like Tea Partiers ranting about how blacks are always playing "the race card". Your total inability to acknowledge the argument Wistrich is making is a case in point. If you can delude yourself into thinking that all anti-Zionism will be unfairly be smeared as antisemitism then you can just reject any accusation of self-described anti-Zionists veering into antisemitism.
|
|
#
?
Dec 21, 2015 00:25
|
|
|
The Insect Court posted:Is it ever physically painful being so wrong? Please explain to us how you can read the following and transform it into "being anti-Israel in any way means anti-semitic, just like Osama Bin Laden". You quoted a passage that asserts that opposition to Zionism does not require anti-semitism, and then immediately connected opposition to Zionism to anti-semitism. Do you, personally, think that it is possible to oppose Zionism without being an anti-semite? As a similar - but separate - question do you think that it is possible to oppose the policies and/or actions of the Israeli government without being an anti-semite?
|
|
#
?
Dec 21, 2015 04:11
|
|
|
skeet decorator posted:Yes it does. At best, we're talking about a practical policy of "ok, people stuck in refugee camps are refugees". (Which is the reason why Arab nations make sure to keep their Palestinian population in refugee camps, so the everything is working exactly as intended)
|
|
#
?
Dec 21, 2015 05:45
|
|
|
Xander77 posted:Dependents does not equal descendants In this case it does, they explicitly spell it out : "HANDBOOK AND GUIDELINES ON PROCEDURES AND CRITERIA FOR DETERMINING REFUGEE STATUS" posted:individuals who obtain derivative refugee status enjoy the same rights and entitlements as other recognised refugees and should retain this status notwithstanding the subsequent dissolution of the family through separation, divorce, death, or the fact that the child reaches the age of majority. Xander77 posted:At best, we're talking about a practical policy of "ok, people stuck in refugee camps are refugees". (Which is the reason why Arab nations make sure to keep their Palestinian population in refugee camps, so the everything is working exactly as intended) It is pretty lovely that some Arab states still refuse to grant citizenship to their Palestinian refugees, but that doesn't make Israel any less lovely. And realistically, any solution that relies on Saudi Arabia respecting the human rights of its Palestinian refugees is laughable at best. So what is a realistic solution for refugees stuck in a poo poo hole like Saudi Arabia?
|
|
#
?
Dec 21, 2015 08:25
|
|
|
skeet decorator posted:In this case it does, they explicitly spell it out : Maybe a two-state solution? A boycott of Saudi-made products?
|
|
#
?
Dec 21, 2015 09:31
|
|
|
skeet decorator posted:In this case it does, they explicitly spell it out : quote:Thus, a dependant member of a refugee family may be a national of the country of asylum or of another country, and may enjoy that country’s protection. To grant him refugee status in such circumstances would not be called for. From which I still draw the conclusion that: Xander77 posted:At best, we're talking about a practical policy of "ok, people stuck in refugee camps are refugees".
|
|
#
?
Dec 21, 2015 09:52
|
|
|
skeet decorator posted:In this case it does, they explicitly spell it out :
|
|
#
?
Dec 21, 2015 10:03
|
|
|
Dead Reckoning posted:In addition to what Xander noted, nothing in that implies that those granted derivative refugee status can extend that status to their dependents as well. That "derivative" refugee status is a full and indefinite refugee status that includes all rights and entitlements of refugees - including the ability to extend that refugee status down to their spouse, children, and other dependents. Refugees extend their refugee status to their children, who retain that full refugee status even after they reach the age of majority and strike out on their own, and thus they are able to extend that full and unrestricted refugee status to their own children, who will retain it when they grow up and strike out on their own and pass it on to their own children, etc etc. Both UNRWA and UNHCR operate under this principle, allowing refugee status to be extended to descendants over an unlimited number of generations until such time as the refugee situation is resolved, and both are clear that this is an intentional policy that applies to all refugee populations. The fact that few large examples of this exist is simply an unavoidable result of the relative youth of refugee law and the relative rarity of massive, prolonged, generations-long refugee situations - most other major refugee crises are a couple of decades old, tops. The biggest group of UNHCR refugees, for instance, are refugees from Afghanistan, about half of whom have already been returned to and repatriated in Afghanistan. Instead of trying to figure out how various passages are intepreted by UN refugee organizations, why not just ask those organizations how those passages are interpreted? http://www.unrwa.org/newsroom/features/exploding-myths-unrwa-unhcr-and-palestine-refugees quote:Questions raised about the passing of refugee status through generations stem from a lack of understanding of the international protection regime. These questions serve only to distract from the need to address the real reasons for the protracted Palestinian refugee situation, namely the absence of negotiated solution to the underlying political issues.
|
|
#
?
Dec 21, 2015 15:56
|
|
|
-Troika- posted:The original refugees, all their descendants, and any random person who just so happens to be hanging out in their general area? 
|
|
#
?
Dec 21, 2015 19:19
|
|
|
meanwhile, in Israel,quote:It must be said out loud: The ascendance of the right is not temporary, the occupation is permanent and Israel is one state with two regimes: One is good, and does well by Jews; the other is bad, wicked and discriminates against Palestinians. Now it’s time to fight it.
|
|
#
?
Dec 21, 2015 20:13
|
|
|
-Troika- posted:And what does right of return mean in this context? The original refugees? The original refugees and all their descendants? The original refugees, all their descendants, and any random person who just so happens to be hanging out in their general area? People whose normal place of residence was Palestine and who lost both home and means of livelihood as a result of the 1948 conflict, as well as the descendants of such people, who have registered their status with UNRWA. Kim Jong Il posted:They want a one state solution, so your statement is false. A right of return and annexing Gaza and the West Bank means it's no longer Israel. You're arguing the equivalent of Ariel Sharon didn't slaughter those refugees, he just gave free passage, so there's no relationship whatsoever. But they don't want a one-state solution. Have a look at their founding statement. There is absolutely no mention of a one-state solution. That's something that's left up to their individual groups and although I'm not going to bother checking the statements of 200 different groups, Omar Barghouti (one of the founders of BDS) has stated that most groups support a two-state solution. Not even that but you're making a massive leap of logic. A one-state solution does not mean the destruction of Israel. The expectation is that there will still be a state with a large Jewish population based in the same historical land that the kingdom of Israel was based in thousands of years ago and including many of the key sites of Jewish religion which can serve to protect Jews against anti-Semitism. Now on the other hand they won't have a special privileged status where non-Jewish ethnicities and religions are at best treated as second class and they wouldn't be able to enact laws to discriminate against other ethnicities and guarantee a permanent Jewish majority, but if anyone thinks that should be the basis of any nation then gently caress 'em. Xander77 posted:From which I still draw the conclusion that: Then you're reading it wrong. Main Paineframe's link which I've cited before in these I/P threads explicitly goes through this. Children under 18 of existing refugees, all refugees, are themselves refugees and retain this status once they're over the age of 18.
|
|
#
?
Dec 21, 2015 20:36
|
|
|
The case of the Duma arson in the West Bank, the one which the government angrily claimed it would get to the bottom of, has yet to be solved...despite the fact that the Shin Bet has been holding several "suspects" (including at least one minor) for a month without charging them with a crime or even allowing them to speak with their lawyers. It's quite likely that the Shin Bet has no real evidence (the settler movements are notorious for refusing to cooperate with investigations) and is simply trying to break some people connected to extremist groups in hopes that they'll snitch on someone. http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-4741601,00.html quote:The Shin Bet and the State Attorney will file a prosecutor's statement later this week against the suspects arrested in connection with the arson attack in Duma, while the suspects' supporters claim the Shin Bet tortured them during harsh interrogations.
|
|
#
?
Dec 21, 2015 20:38
|
|
|
team overhead smash posted:Now on the other hand they won't have a special privileged status where non-Jewish ethnicities and religions are at best treated as second class and they wouldn't be able to enact laws to discriminate against other ethnicities and guarantee a permanent Jewish majority, but if anyone thinks that should be the basis of any nation then gently caress 'em. I will never grow tired of hearing anti-Zionists insist in the same breath that Jewish nationalism is an evil racist blight that must be torn out so as to make way for Palestinian nationalism. Or how it's a crime against humanity that Israel offers immigration to people of Jewish descent and one that must be halted so as to offer immigration to people of Palestinian descent. captainblastum posted:You quoted a passage that asserts that opposition to Zionism does not require anti-semitism, and then immediately connected opposition to Zionism to anti-semitism. Do you, personally, think that it is possible to oppose Zionism without being an anti-semite? As a similar - but separate - question do you think that it is possible to oppose the policies and/or actions of the Israeli government without being an anti-semite? I don't know if your eyes just slide off the screen when they come to a quote like the one below as a way to resolve feelings of cognitive dissonance, but I'm going to quote it again and ask how any person could honestly read this as asserting that it's impossible to criticize the Israeli government without being an antisemite. quote:There have always been Bundists, Jewish communists, Reform Jews, and ultra-Orthodox Jews who strongly opposed Zionism without being Judeophobes. So, too, there are conservatives, liberals, and leftists in the West today who are pro-Palestinian, antagonistic toward Israel, and deeply distrustful of Zionism without crossing the line into anti- Semitism. There are also Israeli "post-Zionists" who object to the definition of Israel as an exclusively or even a predominantly "Jewish" state without feeling hostile toward Jews as such. There are others, too, who question whether Jews are really a nation; or who reject Zionism because they believe its accomplishment inevitably resulted in uprooting many Palestinians. None of these positions is intrinsically anti-Semitic in the sense of expressing opposition or hatred toward Jews as Jews.
|
|
#
?
Dec 21, 2015 23:49
|
|
|
The Insect Court posted:I will never grow tired of hearing anti-Zionists insist in the same breath that Jewish nationalism is an evil racist blight that must be torn out so as to make way for Palestinian nationalism. Or how it's a crime against humanity that Israel offers immigration to people of Jewish descent and one that must be halted so as to offer immigration to people of Palestinian descent. It turns out allowing people into your country of one ethnicity as part of your policy of racial purity, ethnic cleansing and war crimes isn't the same thing as allowing people of one ethnicity into your country as part of a commitment to egalitarianism, following international law and reversing the effects of war crimes. In the next instalment of "Of course things are different depending on the context, you loving idiot" we'll be looking at shooting someone who is actively trying to murder you and shooting an unarmed child who is running away from you and is no threat are two very different things despite the principal action being exactly the same! Edit: Not to mention your lack of understanding even in your warped comparison, seeing as it's not a comparison where you can even equate one ethnicity being accepted to one ethnicity being accepted. The right of return would only be offered to people based on their status as refugees regardless of their ethnic origins. Being Palestine wouldn't entitle someone to anything and the majority of Palestinians wouldn't get squat as it's only a minority, albeit a large one, which are refugees. The right is the same right given to every single refugee in the world. not to mention getting in to the country is only a fraction of what I was referring to. The West bank and Gaza are occupied apartheid camps while in Israel the situation isn't nearly so bad but even it's strongest allies like the US government admit that Israel discriminates against its own Arab citizens. team overhead smash fucked around with this message at 00:14 on Dec 22, 2015 |
|
#
?
Dec 22, 2015 00:01
|
|
|
Why don't we just give Gazans and west bankers Sinai and leave judeland to judes.
|
|
#
?
Dec 22, 2015 00:03
|
|
|
-Troika- posted:And what does right of return mean in this context? The original refugees? The original refugees and all their descendants? The original refugees, all their descendants, and any random person who just so happens to be hanging out in their general area? Whatever it takes to wipe the Jewish state from the earth, basically, that's their aim. It's never going to happen though. The palestinians absolutely and without exception doom themselves by continuing to be violent, only a real commitment to non-violence offers them any chance at all for a future, without that there is no hope for them and won't ever be.
|
|
#
?
Dec 22, 2015 00:50
|
|
|
The problem with interacting with Israel's defenders is that they treat other people as if they were themselves, so naturally being "pro-Palestinian" means that you are secretly working to annihilate Israel and Judaism. After all, they are secretly working to annihilate Palestinians. It would require a great deal of psychological and psychiatric intervention to get them capable of having a meaningful conversation.
|
|
|
#
?
Dec 22, 2015 00:56
|
|
|
hakimashou posted:It's never going to happen though. The palestinians absolutely and without exception doom themselves by continuing to be violent, only a real commitment to non-violence offers them any chance at all for a future, without that there is no hope for them and won't ever be. Please show me the stats for how all 12 million Palestinians, without exceptions, have been violent. Super interested in seeing you try to explain how this isn't blatant racism, what with you painting an entire ethnicity as the violent "other" in a manner which I'm sure you wouldn't for a moment accept if the situation were reversed.
|
|
#
?
Dec 22, 2015 01:25
|
|
|
team overhead smash posted:Please show me the stats for how all 12 million Palestinians, without exceptions, have been violent. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TwyImK6KCTc
|
|
#
?
Dec 22, 2015 01:41
|
|
|
LeoMarr posted:Why don't we just give Gazans and west bankers Sinai and leave judeland to judes. Because Israel does not want a truly autonomous Palestinian territory to exist, and because the out-of-control Israeli right considers even "ruling in favor of Palestinians in a minor land dispute" to be morally equivalent to a second Holocaust.
|
|
#
?
Dec 22, 2015 02:00
|
|
|
Effectronica posted:The problem with interacting with Israel's defenders is that they treat other people as if they were themselves, so naturally being "pro-Palestinian" means that you are secretly working to annihilate Israel and Judaism. After all, they are secretly working to annihilate Palestinians. It would require a great deal of psychological and psychiatric intervention to get them capable of having a meaningful conversation. AA, how is this not worthy of probation? (USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST)
|
|
#
?
Dec 22, 2015 03:02
|
|
Kim Jong Il posted:AA, how is this not worthy of probation? The same reason any given post accusing people of being secretly antisemitic is not worthy of probation, and probations for them generally occur when it happens repeatedly or the person does them reflexively. But you'll get your wish soon enough. 
|
|
|
#
?
Dec 22, 2015 03:04
|
|
|
Does BDS accept the right for a Jewish state to exist in the mideast, yes or no? If no, the movement is antisemitic. I expect many words to have been gnashed out by BDS saying no in the most oblique manner possible.
|
|
#
?
Dec 22, 2015 05:57
|
|
|
quote:Does BDS accept the right for a Jewish state to exist in the mideast, yes or no?
|
|
#
?
Dec 22, 2015 07:46
|
|
|
My Imaginary GF posted:Does BDS accept the right for a Jewish state to exist in the mideast, yes or no? BDS is comprised of many disparate organizations who have different ideas about what their ideal political solutions look like. Some support a two state solution, while others support a single state solution. Either way it's irrelevant because BDS does not advocate for any particular political solution, nor is the goal of BDS to reach one. As has already been reiterated in this thread, BDS's goals are: BDS posted:Ending its occupation and colonization of all Arab lands and dismantling the Wall; None of their stated goals inherently threaten Israel as a Jewish state. One could argue that the third goal conflicts with the notion of Israel being a Jewish state, but that argument hinges on the idea that having a Jewish majority is a necessary condition for having a Jewish state. While that is certainly a valid position, if we use that as a basis for determining anti-semitism the most cursory examination leads to logical contradictions. For example, we know that non-Jews currently make up a minority of Israel's population, but we also know non-Jews have a higher birth rate, thus not reducing the non-Jew birth rate would be anti-semetic since it would lead to a non-Jewish majority. Following this line of logic, any Jew who refused to maintain or increase the Jewish birth rate would be guilty of anti-semetism, which is just dumb as hell. Furthermore, even The Insect Court is insisting that it is not anti-semetic to reject Israeli as a Jewish state: quote:There are also Israeli "post-Zionists" who object to the definition of Israel as an exclusively or even a predominantly "Jewish" state without feeling hostile toward Jews as such. There are others, too, who question whether Jews are really a nation; or who reject Zionism because they believe its accomplishment inevitably resulted in uprooting many Palestinians. None of these positions is intrinsically anti-Semitic in the sense of expressing opposition or hatred toward Jews as Jews. Is The Insect Court, one of the most ardent Israel supporters in this thread, being anti-semetic by promulgating such an idea? skeet decorator fucked around with this message at 09:06 on Dec 22, 2015 |
|
#
?
Dec 22, 2015 08:45
|
|
|
I don't think it is reasonable to assume a nation-state must be entirely multicultural and divorced from any historical, cultural, religious or ethnic focus. Most states are not. Requiring Israel to be so seems highly impractical.
|
|
#
?
Dec 22, 2015 09:11
|
|
|
Ethnic cleansing, apartheid and genocide is pretty convenient for the state doing it, yeah
|
|
#
?
Dec 22, 2015 09:12
|
|
|
Maoist Pussy posted:I don't think it is reasonable to assume a nation-state must be entirely multicultural and divorced from any historical, cultural, religious or ethnic focus. Most states are not. Requiring Israel to be so seems highly impractical. Ehhhhh... I think that's fuzzy line, because if you flip it around then it becomes reasonable to assume a nation state must be of a certain culture, which leads to stuff like ethnic cleansing. I think removing/expelling people of the wrong culture would definitely fall under ethnic cleansing, while controlling immigration falls into a more morally grey area. To me this seems questionable because it all quickly devolves into a grotesque moral calculus. Is only allowing Jewish immigrants ok? If you allow the same number or Arab and Jewish immigrants does that undermine the Jewish majority if the Arab birth rate is higher? If the growth rate of the current Arab population is higher than the Jewish birth rate and immigration rate, is it ok to take measures to reduce the Arab birth rate? For me it comes down to a question of self-determination. I think the Jewish people deserve the right to self-determination, but not at the expense of others. I don't see how you can enforce a cultural majority without sacrificing the self-determination of the minority.
|
|
#
?
Dec 22, 2015 10:39
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 19, 2024 09:37 |
|
|
The entire idea behind liberalism as a political ideology is that individual people have rights, not abstract collections or classifications of people. Ethnic groups do not have the right to an exclusive state, and the idea that they do is about as anti-liberal as it gets
|
|
#
?
Dec 22, 2015 11:01
|
|